checker_answerGiven a question id and the chosen option (its choice index), return the next question or the final verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| choice | Yes | ||
| question | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly indicates an action (checking an answer) and its output (next question or verdict), but it does not explain side effects, state changes, or whether this progresses a session. The behavior is adequately described for a simple query tool, but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key parameters. Every word adds value, and it is easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only two scalar parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what input is needed and what to expect. However, it could be improved by stating whether the tool is read-only or mutates state, and how responses map to the 'next question or final verdict', but overall it is minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning, which it partially does: 'question id' clarifies the 'question' parameter, and 'chosen option (its choice index)' clarifies 'choice'. However, it doesn't specify the format of the question id (e.g., string length, identifier pattern) or the range of valid choice indices beyond the schema's minimum 0.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's verb ('return') and resource ('next question or final verdict') with a specific condition ('Given a question id and the chosen option'), making its core function clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like checker_start or checker_tree, which may also involve navigation through questions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like checker_start or checker_tree. The context of 'next step' is implied, but there are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The checker tools split cleanly into start (entry point), answer (interactive step), and tree (full graph), while the enquiry tools cover explanation, schema, and submission. An agent can easily select based on whether it needs the first question, the next question, the whole guide, or enquiry metadata/action.
Names are all lowercase snake_case and mostly use a domain-prefixed pattern: checker_start, checker_answer, checker_tree, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields. submit_enquiry breaks the order by putting the verb first, and a couple of names are resources rather than actions, so it is not perfectly uniform.
With six tools covering the two distinct workflows (decision guide and enquiry submission), the surface is compact and focused. Each tool has a clear role, and none feel redundant or missing.
The decision guide is fully navigable via start/answer, with the full tree available for end-to-end reasoning. The enquiry flow covers explainer, field schema, validation, consent, confirmation token, and final submission, leaving no obvious dead ends.